Comments on: A Modest Proposal: the Defense of Motherhood Acthttps://historiann.com/2013/05/26/a-modest-proposal-the-defense-of-motherhood-act/
History and sexual politics, 1492 to the presentWed, 23 Aug 2017 02:59:08 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/By: Lindenhttps://historiann.com/2013/05/26/a-modest-proposal-the-defense-of-motherhood-act/comment-page-1/#comment-31875
Tue, 28 May 2013 19:15:10 +0000http://www.historiann.com/?p=21283#comment-31875That’s why, in addition to the The Defense of Motherhood Act, we also need my modest proposal: the state-mandated purchase of pregnancy insurance by all fertile males. All those men who whine about how their “choice” is taken away when a woman they’ve impregnated won’t abort on their command will be able to stop whining — the child support will be paid by the insurance company! Of course, premiums would probably be about $3,000 per month, but reductions can be had if the policyholders turn in regular records of their use of contraceptives to lower their risk.

]]>By: cgeyehttps://historiann.com/2013/05/26/a-modest-proposal-the-defense-of-motherhood-act/comment-page-1/#comment-31874
Tue, 28 May 2013 19:03:31 +0000http://www.historiann.com/?p=21283#comment-31874It’s the whole hostage-taking thing — grandparents don’t get to see their grandkids, if the parents don’t get ‘taken care of’ enough. And actual neglect makes a family’s reputation a matter for both the state and the press — that’s a big chance to take, to let fecund kids stay independent.

However, for working-class families, if pregnancy’s the rite of passage, why bother to let one’s daughters go beyond basic literacy? And why the hell does that mean boys have even more license to fail, academically? They’re the ones whose paychecks will get dunned for child support, regardless of what real care they give their kids. Shouldn’t *that* outcome be prepared for?

]]>By: Historiannhttps://historiann.com/2013/05/26/a-modest-proposal-the-defense-of-motherhood-act/comment-page-1/#comment-31873
Tue, 28 May 2013 15:59:57 +0000http://www.historiann.com/?p=21283#comment-31873I’d say that families who are willing to care for a pregnant/postpartum daughter and her baby are in fact doing at least *some* of the work–contra the recruiting officers–but I think this is a very good point.

I don’t understand why so many parents agree to essentially parent their grandchildren alongside their adult-acting but not adult-responsible children. Among middle-class families who expect their children to get at least some college, it seems like another part of the infantilization of children more generally of which I am a severe critic–that is, the desire to protect children from the consequences of their own behavior and choices at all costs. In working-class families who don’t see college as a rite of passage for their children, I think the calculations are different, and childbirth/family formation is itself the rite of passage.

]]>By: cgeyehttps://historiann.com/2013/05/26/a-modest-proposal-the-defense-of-motherhood-act/comment-page-1/#comment-31872
Mon, 27 May 2013 18:32:43 +0000http://www.historiann.com/?p=21283#comment-31872I still hold that families and boyfriends convincing girls to be pregnant is like boys listening to the recruitment officer: The people listened to aren’t the folks doing the work, right here, right now — and if they are, they consider a young one joining them part of a dutiful hazing process.

]]>By: koshemboshttps://historiann.com/2013/05/26/a-modest-proposal-the-defense-of-motherhood-act/comment-page-1/#comment-31871
Mon, 27 May 2013 02:28:24 +0000http://www.historiann.com/?p=21283#comment-31871Last time I looked we are progressing, with noted acceleration, from the 20th century to the 19th. Many European countries have substantial support for moms. (Cannot comment on the legal part.) Our chances of such laws are limited.

]]>By: Indyannahttps://historiann.com/2013/05/26/a-modest-proposal-the-defense-of-motherhood-act/comment-page-1/#comment-31870
Sun, 26 May 2013 23:51:48 +0000http://www.historiann.com/?p=21283#comment-31870Ma Barker was running some kind of a sleeper-cell in that “shoe!” They would kidnap Pitt the Younger, stuff him to the ears with moldy porridge, and try to make Parliament call off the “War on French Terrorism.” I’m a little intrigued myself, now, as some of my stuff has strayed into this neighborhood, to wonder if this is a story that gets re-written perpetually to suit the times. One version has it as being about George II, who was being accused of … I don’t know, something.

There’s also supposedly a Christianized version of the rhyme in which Mrs. B. doesn’t do anything like whipping anyone soundly. A very malleable piece of culture work.

Indyanna: that’s cool! I had no idea about the origins of that nursery rhyme. I’ll have to look into it. (I was always creeped out by the version I knew, particularly the part about how “she gave them some broth, without any bread/whipped them all soundly, and send them to bed.”)

Clearly, we should ask Child Protective Services to look in on Mother Goose & her household.

]]>By: Indyannahttps://historiann.com/2013/05/26/a-modest-proposal-the-defense-of-motherhood-act/comment-page-1/#comment-31866
Sun, 26 May 2013 20:27:31 +0000http://www.historiann.com/?p=21283#comment-31866Those bunnies are great, but the “Old Woman Who Lived in a Shoe” might merit some space on the masthead too. Appeared in print in 1794, although the origin, provenance, and meaning is subject to some argument. 1794 was a famine year in Britain, the eve of an even worse famine year, and a time of social and political upheaval and conflict in which questions of class, household, population, emigration, and conjugality were being fiercely debated and politicized.